NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR.versusPANNALAL CHOUDHURY &ANR.

                           [2015] 8 S.C.R. 78


A        NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & ANR.
                                    v.
                  PANNALALCHOUDHURY &ANR.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 5070 of 2008)
B
                             JULY01,2015
                     [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND
                  ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

c            Service law - Dismissal from service - Order of
    dismissal ...:. Legality of - Charges of financial as also
    administrative irregularities against respondent-Registrar of
    National Institute of Technology - Order of dismissal by
    Principal & Secretary, NIT - Challenge to, on the ground that
D   Principal & Secretary, NIT not authorise to pass such order
    since the authority to dismiss vested in Board of Governors
    (BOG), NIT under the Rules - Held: Resolutions passed by
    BOG show that the BOG monitored, dealt with and eventually
    decided the case of the respondent in their various meetings
E   since inception and also authorized the Principal & Secretary
    to deal with the same in consultation with the Chairman of
    BOG and to do the needful by passing appropriate orders -
    Though expression "to dismiss the respondent" was not there
    in the Resolution but the expression "authorization", "to take
F   necesS?fY action as the Chairman advises" and "to do the
    needful accordingly" in the Resolution were wide enough to
    clothe Principal & Secretary with a power to pass the dismissal
    order, {occasion so arose - Moreso, applying the Jaw of
G   ratification to the facts, the authority exercised by the Principal
    &Secretary by dismissing the respondent was ratified by BOG
    with retrospective effect thereby making an invalid act a lawful
    one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in Rules -
    Dismissal order passed by the Competent Authority-BOG
H   as prescribed in the Rules and thus, was legal and proper
    and is upheld - Order passed by the High Court set aside.
                                     78
 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL               79
                  Cl'iOUDHURY

      Words and phrases: Expression "Ratification" -         A
Meaning of.

       Maxims-· "Ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur" - Held:''A
subsequent ratification of an  aet'is equivalent to a prior
authority to perform such act".                               B

      Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 Reading of the Resolutions passed by
the Board of Governors-BOG in juxtaposition in no
uncertain terms show that the BOG monitored, dealt with C
and eventually decided the case of the respondent in
their various meetings si,l:'tc.e~ inception and also
authorized the Principal & Secretary to deal with the
same in consultation with t'11il Chairman of Board of
                                                           0
Governors and to do the needful by passing appropriate
orders. The expression ·~au~thorization", "to take
necessary action as the Chairman advises" and "to do
the needful accordingly" in the Resolution were wide
enough to clothe the Principal & Secretary with a power E
to pass the dismissal order, if occasion so arises. [Paras
30, 31] [94-B-C; D-E]

      1.2 The appellant rightly submitted that the
Resolutions authorizing the Principal & Secretary to F
pass appropriate orders rightly, did not use. the
expression "to dismiss the respondent" because a'fthat
point of time, the departmental inquiry was in
contemplation against the respondent It was, therefore,
not known at that time as to what would be the outcome G
of departmental proceedings and secondly use of such
expression in the Resoluti.on before the start of
departmental inquiry could. have been construed as
prejudging the issue against the respondent thereby
indicating existence of bias attitude of the Members of H

                              f'
80       SUPREME COURT REPORTS       .        (2015] 8 S.C.R.


A BOG towards the respondent and lastly the three
  expressions used in the Resolution did clothe ·the
  Principal & Secretary with the power to pass appropriate
  orders which included the order imposing punishment
  of dismissal as prescribed in the Rules, against the
B respondent depending upon the outcome of the
  departmental inquiry and subject to grant of final
  approval by the BOG. [Para 32) [94-F-H; 95-A-B]

          1.3 Keeping in view the contents of the four
C Resolutions, there is no hesitation to hold that the
  dismissal order was passed by the BOG and the Principal
  & Secretary only signed the order for and on behalf of
  the BOG on the strength of authorization made in his
  favour by the BOG vide Resolution. [Para 33) [95-D-E]
D
          1.4 The expression "Ratmcation" means "the
  making valid of an act already done". This principle is
  derived from the Latin maxim "ratihabitio mandato
  aequiparatur" meaning thereby "a subsequent
E ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to
  perform such act." Thus, the ratification assumes an
  invalid act, which is retrospectively validated. Applying
  the law of ratification to the f::cts, even if it is assumed
  that the order of dismissal was passed by the Principal
F & Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such
  order under the Rules nor there was any authorization
  given by the BOG in his favour to pass such order yet
  when the BOG in their meeting approved the previous
  actions of the Principal & Secretary in passing the
G respondent's dismissal order all the irregularities
  complained of by the respondent in the proceedings
  including the authority exercised by the Principal &
  Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the Competent
H Authority (Board of Governors) themselves with
  NATIONALINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL 81
                  CHOUDHURY

   retrospective effect from 16.8.1996 thereby making an A
   invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure
   prescribed in Rules. The dismissal order was pasS-ed by
   the CompetentAuthority~BOG as prescribed in the Rules
· .and thus, it was legal and proper and is upheld. The order
  ·passed by the High Court is set aside. [Para 35, 40, 42) B
   [95-G; 98-E-H; 99-A, B-C]

    Parrneshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. U.0.1 1974 (1) SCR
    304: (1973) 2 SCC 543; High Court of Judicature for
    Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh .& Anr. 2003 (1)                    c   •
    SCR 593: (2003) 4 SCC .239; Maharashtra State
    Mining Corpn. Vs. Sunil (2006) 5 SCC 96 - referred
    ~.                           If


    Hartman Vs. Hornsby 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244                D
    referred to.
                                 .,,; .r
                    Case Law Beferenc·e

 1974 (1)SCR 304                    ' Referred to   Par~:37
                                 ·•.. ,,o:.;                     E
 2003 (1) SCR 593                     Referred to   Para 38
                                     •.                  ~H


  (2006) 5 sec 96                     Referred to        ..
                                                    Para 39

       CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppearNo.               F
 5070 of 2008.                             "'' ~·;

        From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .11.2006 in ·Writ
 _Appeal No. 106 of 2004 of the High Court of Guwahati.
                                                       -:11r-
         Manoj Goel, Shuvodeep Roy
                                - .
                                ~
                                    for the Appellants,- ,-      G

       Anshuman Sinha, lmranAlam, Re~jith. B, Vartika ?ahay,
 Corporate Law Group, for the Respondents.            -

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 1
                                                                 H
82         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A           ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1) This appeal is filed
     against the final judgment & order dated 17.11.2006 passed
     by the High Court of Gauhati in W.A. No. 106/2004.

            2) In order to appreciate the' issue involved in this
B    appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, itis necessary to set
     out the relevant facts in brief infra.

           3) The appellant is a reputed Technical Educational
  lnstitut\:l in the country. It is known as "National Institute of
c Technology" (hereinafter referred to as "NIT") at Silchar in the
  State of Assam. Till 28.06.2002, it was functioning as Regional
  Engineering College (hereinafter referred to as "REC") in
  equal participation of State and Central Government. However,
  on and after 28.06.2002: it became fully owned Central
D Government Educational Institute under the exclusive control.
  and supervision of Central Government and was accordingly
  named as NIT.

               4) The respondent was originally appointed as Deputy
E    Registrar (Accounts) on 17.07.1986 by the erstwhile REC in
     their Institute. After few years, the respondent, on being
     selected, was appointed as Registrar of the REC. However,
     he was asked to hold the post of Deputy Registrar (Accounts)
     till the said post was regularly filled up.
F
          5) In the year 1994-95, it was noticed in the audit that
  while functioning as Registrar/Deputy Registrar(Accounts), the
  respondent had committed several serious financial as also
  administrative irregularities. The irregularities were related
G to the acts of insubordination, dereliction of duties while
  attending to the work of the Institute, suppression of facts from
  the higher authorities and misappropriation of Institution's funds
  thereby putting the Institute to suffer loss etc.

H         6) The Management of REC accordingly issued three
     show cause notices/charge sheets two on 24.10.1994
 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                  83
     CHOUDHURY [ABHAY MANOHAR SAP RE, J.]

 (Annexure-P-1collectively) and one on 01.02.1995 (Annexure A
·P-3) to the respondent under Rule 9 of the Assam Services
 (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to
 as ''the Rules"). The details of the irregularities/misconduct
 committed by the respondent were enclosed with the charge
 sheets. The respondent was asked to file his written reply to B
 the aforesaid charge sheets .. He was also asked to inspect
 the relevant documents, if he so desired to do so.

       7) The matter was accordingly placed in the 66th
meeting of the Board of Governors (in short "BOG") held on C
07.12.1994 as agenda Item Nos: 7(a) and 8 under the caption
- "To receive a note of recent financial
                                .P
                            . 'I ..
                                         stalemate created
                                          j

by Shri Pannalal Choudha~ry, Registrar who was also
holding the charge of Deputy Registrar (Accounts) and
suggest remedial measures to avoid such situation in D
future" and second "To consider rectification of
irregularities observed by A'.G. Audit in the accounts of
REC "Silchar".

        8) The BOG discussed the matter under reference in E
the said meeting and viewed the same as being serious
because of nature of charges.-. and the allegations ,.made in
support thereof. The BOG approved the action proposed,
                                                    . :'''      '
initiated and taken by the Principal & Secretary against the
respondent so far and further directed to take next disciplinary F
step in consultation with the Chairman, BOG.
                                      ,           ,. c,,.,!
       9) This led to constitution of an inquiry _9!m1mittee
consisting of three Members by the Management for holding
a regular departmental inquiry into the charges leveled.against G
the respondent. Out of three Members, one Dr. S.K.   "-C
                                                         Das -
Head of the Department of Humanities of REC Silchar was
                                                     '··
appointed as the Presiding Officer while Sri. R. Gupta, Head
of the Department of Applied Mechanics and Sr. A.I." Laskar,
Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering were the H
84         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A    Members. Since the charges leveled against the respondent
     were serious in nature, the BOG, by order dated 17.02.1995
     put the respondent under suspension pending departmental
     inquiry.

B         10) The Committee then issued notices to the
  respondent for his appearance on various dates such as
  04.07.1995, 20.07.1995,. 03.08.1!;!95, 14.08.1995 and
  27 .12.1995 to participate in the inquiry but he failed to appear
  for the reasons best known to him. The Management
C accordingly examined four witnesses in support of the charges
  on 14.08.1995. Thereafter, on 27 .12 .1995 the respondent sent
  a letter to the Committee praying therein that since he has
  challenged his suspension order in Court, the departmental
  proceedings initiated against him be stayed awaiting the
D outcome of the Court proceedings.

             11) The Committee considered the prayer made by the
     respondent and was of the view that in the absence of stay
     order passed by any Court, there is no justification to stay the
E    departmental proceedings as prayed by the respondent. The
     Committee, therefore, rejected the prayer .made by the
     respondent and issued another notice to the respondent
     requesting him_ to appear before the Committee on
     10.01.1996. The respondent did not appear and hence the
F    inquiry proceedings were adjourned for 18.01.1996. In the
     notice sent to the respondent for his appearance on
     18.01.1996, it was specifically mentioned that in case the
     respondent fails to appear on that date, no further notice would
     be sent to him of the proceedings. The respondent, despite
G    service of notice, remained absent even on 18.01.1996. The
     Committee then concluded its proceedings on the basis of
     material produced before it by the Management and submitted
     its 16-page report on 29. 02. 1996 (Annexure-P-4 ), concluding
H    therein that all the charges leveled against the respondent in 3
     charge sheets stood proved.
  NATIONALINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                       85
      CHOUDHURY [AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

          12) On 11.03.1996, the report of the Committee·was A
  placed beforethe BOG in their681h meeting asAgenda Nos.
  6 and 24 to decide further action keeping in view the findings
. ()f the Committee. The BOG, after perusing the report,
. accepted all the findings of the Committee and accordingly
  resolved to impose punishment on the respondent. The BOG B
  also authorized the Principal & Secretary to prepare the show
  cause,notice and take necessary action as the Chairman/
  8oard advises (Annexure-P-5) and do the.needful in the matter.

        13) Accordingly, a show cause notice was sent to the C
 respondent on 07.06.96 (Annexure-P-6) by registered post
 along with the copy of the Inquiry report dated 29.02.1996
 proposing therein the punishment of dismissal of the
 respondent from the service. Even after receipt of the show
 cause notice, the respondent did not file any reply. The Principal D
 & Secretary accordingly informed the Chairman by his letter
 dated 01.07.1996 (Annexure-P-7) about non-submission-of
 any reply by the respondent. The Principal & Secretary by his
 order dated 16.08.19.96(Annexure-P-8) dismissed the
 respondent from the services of REC.                               E

        14)The matter was then placed before the BOG in their
 69th meeting held on 22.08.1996as Item No. 2 for appropriate
 orders, if any, in relation to the respondent's services. The
 BOG, in express terms, after deliberating the matter approved     F
 the minutes of earlier meeting and also approved of the action
 taken against the respondent by the Principal.& Secretary. and
 accordingly noted its compliance made in that behalf.

        15) It is with these aforementioned facts, which are G
 undisputed, the respondent, felt aggrieved by the dismissal
 order dated 16.08.1996, filed writ petition before the High
 Court. The challenge to dismissal order in thewrit petition was
 essentially on one ground, namely, that the authority, which
 passed the dismisspl order, had no power to pass and hence H
86        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 8 S.C.R.


A it was illegal and thus liable to be set aside. It was contended
  that the power to pass the dismissal order, as per the Rules,
  vests with the BOG and hence only the BOG could pass such
  order. It was pointed out that since the dismissal order was
  passed by the Principal &Secretary, who had no authority to
B pass such order under the Rules, hence dismissal order was
  bad in law. It was also contended that even assuming that the
  BOG had delegated their powers in favour of Principal &
  Secretary to take appropriate disciplinary action against the
  respondent as their delegate, yet mere reading of the
C resolutions passed by the BOG in this behalf would goto show
  that no such power was conferred or/and delegated to the
  Principal & Secretary so as to empower him to pass dismissal
  order of the respondent.

D         16) The appellant (as respondent in the writ petition)
  while opposing the writ petition defended their action, which
  had culminated in respondent's dismissal from service and
  contended that it was passed as per the Rules. According to
  the appellant, the entire action proposed, initiated and
E eventually taken against the respondent which resulted in his
  dismissal from service was taken by the BOG and later
  approved by the BOG in their meetings held on various dates
  and hence it was wrong on the part of the respondent to
F contend that the dismissal order was i:iot passed by the BOG
  but was passed by the Principal & Secretary. It was pointed
  out that the Principal & Secretary was also authorized by the
  BOG to initiate and take disciplinary action against the
  respondent in consultation with the Chairman, BOG and do
G the needful, which he did pursuant to such power delegated to
  him, and later also sought its approval from the BOG It was
  lastly contended that when the BOG, in their last meeting held
  on 22.08.1996 approved the entire action including passing
  of the dismissal order then all previous actions taken by the
H Principal & Secretary stood ratified by the BOG from the date
 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                     87
     CHOUDHURY [AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

they were taken and thus became legal and proper. The             A
appellant also defended the entire departmental proceedings
initiated against the respondent contending that the
departmental proceedings were held in accordance with law
by following proper procedure prescribed in the Rules and
giving full opportunity to the responderit to defend and hence    B
no flaw can be noticed in the proceedings.

         17) As mentioned above, the writ court (single judge)
 allowed the respondent's writ petition and set aside the
 dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 on the short ground that C
·since the competent authority did not pas.s the dismissal order
 prescribed in the Rules, i.e., the BOG, whereas it was passed
 by the Principal &Secretary who had no authority to pass such
 dismissal order under the Rules and hence it was liable to be
 set aside being against the rules. The writ court accordingly D
 set aside the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 with a
 direction to the appellant to reinstate the respondent in their
 services by giving him all consequential benefits.

        18) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed      E
intra court appeal. By impugned order, the Division Bench
concurred with the view taken by the Single Judge (writ court)
dismissed the appellant's appeal. Challenging, the said order,
the appellant filed this appeal by way of special leave before
this Court.                                                       F

       19) Heard Mr. Manoj Goel, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mr. Anshuman Sinha, learned counsel for
contesting respondent No. 1.
                                                                  G
        20) Mr. Manoj Goel, learned Counsel appearing forthe
appellant while assailing the legality and correctness of the
view taken by the writ court and appellate court contended that
both the courts below erred in allowing the respondent's writ
petition and quashing the dismissal order dated 16.08.1996.       H
88         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A          21) In the first place, learned counsel for the appellant
     contended that no fault could be noticed in the entire
     departmental proceedings, which eventually resulted in
     respondent's ouster from the services because it was
     conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules prescribed.
B
            22) In the second place, his contention was that the
     Principal & Secretary was duly authorized by the BOG to initiate
     departmental proceedings and to take appropriate action in
     consultation with the Chairman of the BOG against the
C    respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel
     placed reliance on various Resolutions passed by the BOG
     from time to time and, in particular, Resolutions dated
     07.12.1994, 08.06.1995, 11.03.1996,and 22.08.1996.

o        23) In the third place, he contended that the BOG was
  involved in all the deliberations at every stage of the
  departmental proceedings as would be clear from the minutes
  of meetings of the BOG and hence it can not be said that the
  BOG did not take any decision or it was not aware of the
E proceedings or did not approve of the action taken against
  the respondent by the Principal & Secretary.

          24) In the fourth place, it was contended that the entire
  action in question having been approved or/and ratified by the
F BOG in their last meeting held on 22.08.1996, whatever so-
  called defects even if existed in the departmental proceedings
  including passing.of the dismissal order on 16.08.1996, the
  same stood ratified by the BOG in .their meeting held on
  22.08.1996 and hence no fault can be noticed in the
G proceedings.
            25) In contra, learned counsel for the respondent
     supported the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
     two Courts below and contended that no case is made out to
H    interfere in the impugned order. Learned counsel then
 NATIONALINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                           89
     CHOUDHURY [ABHAY MANO HAR SAPRE, J.]

elaborated his submissions in support of the reasons rendered        A
by the two Courts.

       26) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in all the
contentions urged by the learned counsel forthe appellant. This      B
we say so for the. following reasons:

          27)Atthe threshold; it is noticed that in the writ petition,
  the respondent had taken several grounds .to challenge· the
  dismissal order on merits: However, a perusal of order of the C
 writ court would show that the writ petitioner did not press any
  of the grounds. The only ground, which he pressed, while
  prosecuting the writ petition, was that the order of dismissal
  was passed by the Principal & Secretary of the NIT, who had
  no authority to pass such order. Since the authority, to dismiss D
  the respondent vested in the BOG of the NIT under the Rules
  and hence the dismissal order was bad in law. In view of the
. fact that the respondent did not press any of the grounds before
  the High Court except the one mentioned above we need not .
  go into any of the ground. The only issue the High Court was E
  called upon to decide was whether the removal of the
  respondent from service was by the competent authority?

        28) The High Court, as mentioned above, allowed the
writ petition holding that the impugned order of dismissal dated F
16.08.1996 was, in fact. passed by the Principal &Secretary,
who had no authority to"pass such order under the Rules. It
was held that the competent authority to pass the dismissal
order under the Rules was the BOG The High Court accordingly
set aside the order of dismissal with a direction to grant all G
consequential service benefits to the respondent. In appeal·
filed by the appellant, the Division Bench concurred with the
view laken by the Single Judge and accordingly dismissed
the appellant's appeal, giving rise to filing of this appeal by the
appellant (Management).                                             H
90         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2015] 8 S.C.R.


A             29) Before we proceed to appreciate the·submissions,
     it is apposite to reproduce the relevant \:!xtracts of the meetings
     of the BOG, to show as to how the issue of the respondent was
     dealt with by the BOG:

B                                   ·(1)
             Minutes of the Meeting held on 07.12.1994
        "ltem-7(a): To receive a note of recent financial
        stalemate created by Shri Pannalal Choudhury,
        Registrar who was also holding the charge of
c
        Deputy Registrar (Accounts) and suggest remedial
        measures to avoid such situation in future:
           The Board approved the action taken by the
       Principal & Secretary, on the advice of the Hon'ble
D      Chairman, BOG, regarding financial stalemate as ex-
       post facto.
           Further, while discussing various charges of
       insubordination, dereliction of duty, suppression of
E      facts etc. brought against and accordingly charge-
       s heets served to Shri Pannalal Choudhury,
       Registrar who was also holding the charge of
       Deputy Registrar (Accounts), by the Principal &
       Secretary, the Board of Governors took the matter
F      with all seriousness and directed the Principal &
       Secretary to take necessary legal advice for further
       disciplinary actions in conscltation with the Hon'ble
       Chairman, BOG, REC Silchar."
        "ltem-8: To consider rectification of irregularities
G       observed by A.G. Audit in the accounts of Regional
        Engg. College, Silchar.
           The Board scrutinized various financial
       irregularities highlighted by A.G. Audit and also by
H      the Principal & Secretary, BOG, and took the whole
NATIONALINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                91
    CHOUDHURY [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

 matter very seriously and directed the Principal &      A
 Secretary to take legal advice and draw disciplinary
 proceedings against Shri Pannalal Choudhury,
 Registrar who was also holding the charge of
 Deputy Registrar (Accounts).
                                                         B
 The Board further directed the Principal &
 Secretary,. BOG, to take next disciplinary step in
 consultationwith the Hon'ble Chairman, BOG."
                          (2)
                                                         c
     Minutes of the Meeting held on 08.06.1995
 Item 6: To decide on the case of Sri Pannalal
 Choudhury, Registrar (under suspension).
 Sri Pannalal Choudhury, Registr~r was put under         D
 suspension on 17 .02.1995 by the Secretary, Board
 of Governors obtaining necessary legal advice as
 well as the written directive by the Hon'ble
 Chairman, Board of Governors.
 The Hon'ble eoard in its 66'" meeting vide Item No.     E
 7(a) discussed various administrative charges of
 insubordination dereliction of duty, suppression of
 facts etc. and accordingly the chargesheets were
 served to S~i Choudhury. The Board then directed
                                                         F
 the Principal and Secretary to take necessary legal
 advice for further disciplinary actions in
 consultation with the Hon'ble Chairman, Board of
 Governors. And the Board in the same meeting vide
 item No. 8 also scrutinized various financial
                                                         G
 irregularities highlighted by the A.G. Audit and also
 by the Principal and Secretary. The Board took the
 whole matter very seriously and directed ·the
 Secretary to take further legal advice and draw
 disciplinary proceedings against Sri Choudhury.         H
92      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2015] 8 S.C.R.


A    The Principal and Secretary accordingly took all
     necessary legal advice both from the High Court
     and the District Court Advocates duly appointed by
     the College and a Board of Inquiry was constituted
     on May 6, 1995 with the following Members for the
B    purpose of Departmental proceedings:-
     1. Presiding Officer : Dr. S.K. Das
     2. Members              i) Dr. R. Gupta
                             ii) Prof. A.I. Laskar
c
     3. Presenting Officer: Sri Sudipta Kr. Bhattacharjee
     [However, at present a new Presenting Officer Sri
     F.A. Talukdar, Lecturer, Deptt. OfElectricalEngg. has
     been appointed as Sri Sudipta Kr. Bhattacharjee
D    has informed his inability to continue as Presenting
     Officer as he has applied for leave on medical
     ground.]
     The Board of Inquiry has already completed its
E    assigned job and the report of the Board will be
     placed on the table for detailed discussion by the
     Hon'ble Members of the Board of Governors and
     for necessary action thereafter."
                              (3)
F
           Minutes of Meeting held on 11.03.1996
     "ltem-6: To decide on the case of Shri Pannalal
     Choudhury Registrar (under suspension).
G        The report of the Board of inquiry was placed
     before the Board and after a detailed discussion,
     the board authorized the Principal and Secretary
     to prepare a draft show cause notice on behalf of
     the Board to be served to Shri Pannalal Choudhury,
H    Registrar (under suspension) for imposing the
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL            93
    CHOUDHURY [ABHAY ~~NO HAR SAP RE, J.]

 punishment and to send a copy of the same to the       A
 Ministry of Human Re~ou_rce Development, New
 Delhi with a request to communicate their
 comments, if any, within.21 days. The·board also
 authorized the Principal & Secretary to submit the
 draft show cause notice after expiry of the above      B
 period of the Ministry of Human Resource ·
 Development and after ta'i<ing legal advice to the
 Chairman, Board of Governors for serving the said
 show cause notice by the Board to Sri Pannalal
 Choudhury, Registrar (u,~der suspension) and to        C
 take necessary action as the Chairman/Board
 advices."
 "ltem-24: To decide on the misappropriatio'! of
 college money by sri Pannalal Choudhury in his         o
 capacity as Deputy Registrar (Accounts).
     The Board discussed this item in relation to the
 item No. 6 and authorized the Principal Secretary
 to do the needful accordingly."
                                                        E
                          (4)
       Minutes of Meeting held on' 22.08.1996 ·
 "ltem-2: To receive a note on the actions taken and
 progress made on the resolutions of the last           F
 meeting.                                      l
    Under item-6B68/96:
    In pursuance of the resolution and direction of
the Board actions were taken and dismissal order        G
had been issued to Sri Pannalal Choudhury,
Registrar (under suspension) on 16.8.1996 and his
name had been struck off from the strength of the
Regional Engineering College, Silchar Society. The ·
Board noted the compliance of the action taken.         H
                        ..,                 ...
                                            -     ~,
94        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015) 8 S.C.R.


A          The Board also noted the actions taken against
       item Nos.7, 8, 10, 15, 24 and 25 and approved the
       same."

           30) Reading of the aforementioned four Resolutions
B passed by the BOG in juxtaposition in no uncertain terms show
  that the BOG monitored, dealt with and eventually decided the
  case of the respondent in their various meetings since
  inception and also authorized the Principal &Secretary to deal
  with the same in consultation with the Chairman of Board of
C Governors and to do the needful by passing appropriate orders.
  It is also clear that in the last meeting held on 22.08.1996, the
  BOG approved the Resolution passed in the earlier 68'"
  meeting held on 11.03.1996, which had dealt with the case of
  respondent at Item Nos. 6 and 24.
D
         31) In our considered view, the expression
  "authorization" and "to take necessary action as the
  Chairman advises" in Item No. 6 and lastly, the expression
  "to do the needful accordingly" in Item No. 24 in the
E Resolution dated 11.03.1996 were wide enough to clothe the
  Principal &Secretary with a power to pass the dismissal order,
  if occasion so arises.

          32) As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
F appellant, the Resolutions authorizing the Principal &Secretary
  to pass appropriate orders rightly, did not use the expression
  "to dismiss the respondent" because at that point of time,
  the departmental inquiry was in contemplation against the
  respondent. It was, therefore, not known at that time as to what
G would be the outcome of departmental proceedings and
  secondly use of such expression in the Resolution before the
  start of departmental inquiry could have been construed as
  prejudging the issue against the respondent thereby indicating
  existence of bias attitude of the Members of the Board of
H Governors towards the respondent and lastly as said above,
 NATIONALINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                        95
     CHOUDHURY [AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
                                 ~


the three expressions used in the'Resolution did clothe the A
Principal & Secretary with the -pbwer to pass appropriate
orders which included the order imposing punishment of
dismissal as prescribed in the Rules, against the respondent
depending upon the outcome oftlle.departmental inquiry and
subject to grant of final approval by the BOG. Indeed the B
expression "and to take netessary action as the
Chairman/Board advises" and "to do the needful" used
in the Resolution were very. apt words rightly usedJn the
resolutions for taking intended action which was in
contemplation, against the respondent.                       C

        33) In the light 9f aforesaid . <:f iscussion and keeping in
mind the contents of the Resolutions, it is difficult to agree with
the view taken by the High Court that the BOG did not  pass      the
dismissal order but it was passed by the Principal & Secretary. D
In other words, keeping in view the contents of the four
Resolutions, we have no hesitation to hold that the dismissal
order dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the BOG and the
Principal & Secretary only signed the order for and on behalf
of the BOG on the strength of authorization made in his favour E
by the BOG vide Resolution dated 11.03.1996.                J'Z'

        34) That apart, the issue in question could be examined
from yet another angle by applying the law relating to
"Ratification" which was not take~ note of by the High Court.     F

        35) The expression "Ra~ification" means "the making
valid of an act already done". \his principle is derived from the
Latin maxim "ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur' meaning
                               ·11-..• l ~ ._
thereby "a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a G
prior authority to perform such ,act." It is for this reason; the
ratification assumes an invalid ~ct, which is retrospectively
validated ..
                                 lJ -
       36) The expression "ratification" was succinctly defined   H
96        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2015] 8 S.C.R.

                               .,
A    by the English Court in one old case, Hartman Vs. Hornsby
     reported in 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244 as under:

       " 'Ratification' is th~' approval by act, word, or
       conduct, of that -Jwhich
                              t,
                                     was attempted (of
B      accomplishment), but which was improperly or
       unauthorisedly performed in the first instance."

       37) The law of ratific::ition was applied by this Court in
  Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. U.0.1 (1973) 2 SCC 543.
c In that case, the Chairman of the Board of Directors had
  terminated the services of the General Manager of a Company
  pursu_ant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It
  was not in dispute that the meeting had been improperly held
  and consequently the resolution passed in the said meeting
D terminating the services of General Manager was invalid.
  However, the Board of Directors then convened subsequent
  meeting and in this meeting affirmed the earlier resolution,
  which had been passed in improper meeting. On these facts,
  the Court held,
E
       "Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the
       let-fur terminating the services of the appellant by
       the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid
       resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16-
F      12-1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow
       that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified
       in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of
       Directors. The point is that even assuming that the
       Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate
G      the services of the a·ppellant, he was acting on
       behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he
       purported to act in "pursuance of the invalid
       resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly
       constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to
H      ratify that action which, though unauthorised, was
 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLGGY v. PANNALAL                            97
     CHOUDHURY [AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

   done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would                     A
   always relate back to the dat~bfthe act ratified and
                              1
   so it must be held that the services of the appellant
   were validly terminated on, t7·12-1953."

      38) This view was approvecfby this Court in High Court B
of Judicature for Rajasthan        Vs.
                                   ·P.P. Singh & Anr. (2003)
4 sec 239.                     r. •0

        39) The aforesaid principle of law of ratification was
again applied by this Court in· Maharashtra State'Mining                 c
Corpn. Vs. Sunil (2006) 5 SCC 96. In this case', the
respondent was an employee of the appellant Corpdtation.
Consequent to a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed by
the Managing Director of the appellant. The respondent then
filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the pe'rldency       D
                                       of
of the writ petition, the Board' Directors of the appellant
Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the impugned action
of the Managing Director and also empowering him tdrtake
                                 .                           ··n
decision in respect of the officers and staff in the grade -of pay
the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 4700 p.m. Earlier,               E
the Managing Director had powe_r:s only in respect 9!!hose
posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs.1900,p.m.
The respondent at the relevant t!r:ne was drawing mor!l than
Rs.1800 p.m. Therefore, at the relevanttime, the Managing...... ...__.
                                   ~   -
Director was incompetent ..to dismiss the respq11dent.
Accordingly, the High Court held the order of dismissal to be
                                                             ..          F

invalid. The High Court further_h~ld that the said defect could
not be rectified subsequently l:/y.,the resolution of the Board of
Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and
granted consequential relief.~.:_ The appellant then filed the           G
appeal in this Court by specialJeave. Justice Ruma Pal,
speaking for three- Judge Bench, while allowing the.appeal
and setting aside of the Court held as under:

   "The High Court rightly he11fthat an act by a legally                 H
                             , .r               ~ '!•~.
98        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015) 8 S.C.R.


A     incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely
      wrong in holding that such an invalid act could not
      be subsequently "rectified" by ratification of the
      competent authority. Ratification by definition
      means the making valid of an act already done. The
B     principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio
      mandato aequiparatur, namely, "a subsequent
      ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority
      to perform such act." Therefore, ratification
      assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively
c     validated."

      "In the present case, the Managing Director's order
      dismissing the respondent from service was
      admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors
D     unquestionably had the power to terminate the
      services of the respondent. Since the order of the
      Managing Director had been ratified by the Board
      of Directors such ratification related back to the date
      of the order and validated it."
E
           40) Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to
  the fact!> at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument
  thatthe order of dismissal dated 16.08.1996 was passed by
  the Principal & Secretary who had neither any authority to pass
F such order under the Rules nor there was any authorization
  given by the BOG in his favour to pass such order yet in our
  considered view when the BOG in their meeting held on
  22.08.1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal &
  Secretary in passing the respondent's dismissal order dated
G 16.08.1996, all the irregularities complained of by the
  respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised
  by the Principal & Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by
  the CompetentAuthority (Board of Governors) themselves with
H retrospective effect from 16.8.1996 thereby making an invalid
 NATIONALINSTITUTEOFTECHNOLOGY v. PANNALAL                         99
     CHOUDHURY [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.)

act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in    A
Rules.                             ·•      ·

        41) In such circumstances, the respondent's grievance
that the.dismissal order had not been passed by the competent
authority, i.e., the BOG is no longer survived.        ,,,         B

       42) In the light of foregoing'discussion, we differ with
the view taken by the High Court and accordingly hold that the
dismissal order dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the
Competent Authority, namely, the BOG as prescribed in the          c
Rules and hence it was legal and proper. It is accordingly
upheld.
                                                       .
       43) As already mentio11ed above, no other point was
                                                           .
urged by the respondent in the writ petition and also iri 'intra
                                                                  D
court appeal of the appellant by filing cross objection therein
for assailing the legality and correctness of the dismissal order
on other grounds except the one which we have decided. It is,
therefore, not necessary to go into any other question. '
                                  .    ~           '


       44) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal             E
succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned ordE(r is set
aside. As a consequence, the writ petition filed by the
respondent stands dismissed. No costs.

Nidhi Jain                                       Appeal allowed.   F




                                ..
                               '.Jj•